Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear labs

  • How to Protect Our Nuclear Deterrent

    This article was originally published by the Wall Street Journal

    The four of us have come together, now joined by many others, to
    support a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to
    prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately to
    end them as a threat to the world. We do so in recognition of a clear
    and threatening development.

    The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how, and
    nuclear material has brought us to a tipping point. We face a very real
    possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into
    dangerous hands.

    But as we work to reduce nuclear weaponry and to realize the vision
    of a world without nuclear weapons, we recognize the necessity to
    maintain the safety, security and reliability of our own weapons. They
    need to be safe so they do not detonate unintentionally; secure so they
    cannot be used by an unauthorized party; and reliable so they can
    continue to provide the deterrent we need so long as other countries
    have these weapons. This is a solemn responsibility, given the extreme
    consequences of potential failure on any one of these counts.

    For the past 15 years these tasks have
    been successfully performed by the engineers and scientists at the
    nation’s nuclear-weapons production plants and at the three national
    laboratories (Lawrence Livermore in California, Los Alamos in New
    Mexico, and Sandia in New Mexico and California). Teams of gifted
    people, using increasingly powerful and sophisticated equipment, have
    produced methods of certifying that the stockpile meets the required
    high standards. The work of these scientists has enabled the secretary
    of defense and the secretary of energy to certify the safety, security
    and the reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile every year since the
    certification program was initiated in 1995.

    The three labs in particular should be applauded for the success they
    have achieved in extending the life of existing weapons. Their work has
    led to important advances in the scientific understanding of nuclear
    explosions and obviated the need for underground nuclear explosive
    tests.

    Yet there are potential problems ahead, as identified by the
    Strategic Posture Commission led by former Defense Secretaries Perry and
    James R. Schlesinger. This commission, which submitted its report to
    Congress last year, calls for significant investments in a repaired and
    modernized nuclear weapons infrastructure and added resources for the
    three national laboratories.

    These investments are urgently needed to undo the adverse
    consequences of deep reductions over the past five years in the
    laboratories’ budgets for the science, technology and engineering
    programs that support and underwrite the nation’s nuclear deterrent. The
    United States must continue to attract, develop and retain the
    outstanding scientists, engineers, designers and technicians we will
    need to maintain our nuclear arsenal, whatever its size, for as long as
    the nation’s security requires it.

    This scientific capability is equally important to the long-term goal
    of achieving and maintaining a world free of nuclear weapons—with all
    the attendant expertise on verification, detection, prevention and
    enforcement that is required.

    Our recommendations for maintaining a safe, secure and reliable
    nuclear arsenal are consistent with the findings of a recently completed
    technical study commissioned by the National Nuclear Security
    Administration in the Department of Energy. This study was performed by
    JASON, an independent defense advisory group of senior scientists who
    had full access to the pertinent classified information.

    The JASON study found that the
    “[l]ifetimes of today’s nuclear warheads could be extended for decades,
    with no anticipated loss in confidence, by using approaches similar to
    those employed in Life Extension Programs to date.” But the JASON
    scientists also expressed concern that “[a]ll options for extending the
    life of the nuclear weapons stockpile rely on the continuing maintenance
    and renewal of expertise and capabilities in science, technology,
    engineering, and production unique to the nuclear weapons program.” The
    study team said it was “concerned that this expertise is threatened by
    lack of program stability, perceived lack of mission importance, and
    degradation of the work environment.”

    These concerns can and must be addressed by providing adequate and
    stable funding for the program. Maintaining high confidence in our
    nuclear arsenal is critical as the number of these weapons goes down. It
    is also consistent with and necessary for U.S. leadership in
    nonproliferation, risk reduction, and arms reduction goals.

    By providing for the long-term investments required, we also
    strengthen trust and confidence in our technical capabilities to take
    the essential steps needed to reduce nuclear dangers throughout the
    globe. These steps include preventing proliferation and preventing
    nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material from getting into dangerous
    hands.

    If we are to succeed in avoiding these
    dangers, increased international cooperation is vital. As we work to
    build this cooperation, our friends and allies, as well as our
    adversaries, will take note of our own actions in the nuclear arena.
    Providing for this nation’s defense will always take precedence over all
    other priorities.

    Departures from our existing
    stewardship strategies should be taken when they are essential to
    maintain a safe, secure and effective deterrent. But as our colleague
    Bill Perry noted in his preface to America’s Strategic Posture report,
    we must “move in two parallel paths—one path which reduces nuclear
    dangers by maintaining our deterrence, and the other which reduces
    nuclear dangers through arms control and international programs to
    prevent proliferation.” Given today’s threats of nuclear proliferation
    and nuclear terrorism, these are not mutually exclusive imperatives. To
    protect our nation’s security, we must succeed in both.

    Beyond our concern about our own stockpile, we have a deep security
    interest in ensuring that all nuclear weapons everywhere are resistant
    to accidental detonation and to detonation by terrorists or other
    unauthorized users. We should seek a dialogue with other states that
    possess nuclear weapons and share our safety and security concepts and
    technologies consistent with our own national security.

  • An Open Letter to the Regents of the University of California

    An Open Letter to the Regents of the University of California

    The decision that you make on whether or not to bid to continue managing and overseeing the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories transcends ordinary university business decisions; it is a decision of profound moral consequence. The question that must be confronted is whether or not an institution of higher education should be involved in the creation and maintenance of weapons of mass destruction.

    While nuclear weapons are intended primarily for deterrence, the concept of deterrence itself is based on an implied assumption that the weapons might be used. Are the Regents of the University of California willing to continue to affiliate the University with laboratories that research and develop nuclear weapons, recognizing that the mass destruction of human beings could result? Although it may not be the intent, the potential use of nuclear weapons and larger implications of the university’s involvement cannot be denied.

    Your decision has vast legal, as well as moral dimensions. In a 1996 opinion, the International Court of Justice found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be illegal if it violated international humanitarian law. This means that any threat or use of nuclear weapons that failed to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants or that caused unnecessary suffering would be illegal under international law. It is difficult to imagine any use of nuclear weapons that would not violate these rules of international humanitarian law.

    Although the actual decision to threaten or use nuclear weapons would be out of the hands of the University of California Regents and the scientists and technicians who contributed to the creation and maintenance of the weapons, the UC Regents and the scientists and technicians in the labs could be considered accomplices to future international crimes. The current work of the nuclear weapons laboratories in researching new and more usable nuclear weapons, such as “bunker busters” and low-yield nuclear weapons, also runs counter to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which calls for ending the nuclear arms race at an early date and for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.

    The University of California justifies its relationship to the nuclear weapons laboratories as “a national service.” But this so-called “service” of designing and improving weapons of mass destruction is unworthy of a great university. In fact, the “service” the University of California has provided is a fig leaf of respectability to the making and maintenance of these genocidal weapons. Should these weapons be used and destroy large civilian populations, the role of the UC would certainly be viewed as a national disgrace rather than a national service.

    If the nuclear weapons laboratories would focus their talented scientists on limiting their nuclear weapons activities to the dismantlement of these weapons and to maintaining the safety and security (rather than reliability) of these weapons while awaiting dismantlement, their efforts could indeed be considered a national service, even an international service. But under the present circumstances in which the US is moving forward with new nuclear weapon designs that make these weapons more usable, the UC should opt out of providing management and oversight to the labs. As UC Regents, you should base your decision on moral considerations, consistent with international law.

    I urge you also to make your decision to withdraw from your past role in management and oversight of the nation’s nuclear weapons labs highly public. Doing so will influence the public and political discourse on the responsibility of the US to set an example in fulfilling obligations for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

    The University of California has a responsibility to pass on the accumulated knowledge of civilization to new generations. The continued engagement of UC in creating and maintaining weapons capable of destroying cities, civilization and most life on earth clearly contradicts the mission of the University, as well as its motto, “Let there be light.” There is no light in the creation of weapons of mass destruction, nor in the shroud of nuclear secrecy.

    I call upon you to take the high road and reconceptualize the national service of the University of California in terms of disarming and dismantling these terrible weapons of mass destruction, rather than creating and maintaining them. In 2005, the 60 th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the 50 th anniversary of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto and the 35 th anniversary of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, I urge you to take a principled stand for the future of humanity. Your decision could help change the course of our nation and the future of civilization.

    David Krieger is a founder and the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). For more information on campaign to end the University of California ‘s involvement with the nuclear weapons laboratories, visit www.ucnuclearfree.org.

  • 100 Letters, 100 Days: Suggested Talking Points, Requests, and Logistics

    Campaign Overview

    Initiated in the spring of 2001, the UC Nuclear Free Campaign stands on the shoulders of a long history of community mobilization toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. The campaign honors this legacy and provides opportunities for a younger generation to contemplate critical issues related to nuclear weapons, claim a voice, and create positive change. Specifically, the campaign highlights the University of California’s management of the nation’s primary nuclear weapons labs: Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore.

    To date, the campaign is driven by student groups on 5 key UC campuses (Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Davis) and community groups with an expertise in nuclear issues: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs) in Livermore, California; Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California; Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety in Santa Fe, New Mexico; and the Los Alamos Study Group in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Toward advancing the UC Nuclear Free Campaign, these groups have formed the Coalition to Demilitarize the University of California.
    A Warm Welcome

    On October 2nd, 2003, UC President Designate Robert Dynesl began his term overseeing one of the largest public university systems in the world: $1 billion in annual donations, 1.2 million alumni, 190,000 students, and 2 nuclear weapons laboratories. During his term, the Regents will decide whether or not to bid to continue managing Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the primary US nuclear weapons laboratories. We ask that members of the UC community, specifically students, faculty, staff, and alumni, seize each of the first 100 days of Dynes’ presidency as opportunities to voice our varied opposition to UC’s role in the development of nuclear weapons. We ask that these voices are joined by diverse stakeholders in the future of humanity, such as high school seniors applying to a UC school, former and current lab employees, parents of UC students, community residents, hibakusha (survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), elected officials, religious leaders, and entertainers. Our aim is for Dynes to receive at least 1 letter per day for 100 days beginning with his first day in office and lasting through January 9th, 2004.
    Getting Started

    A series of talking points and questions are listed herein to help individuals craft their letters. We ask that each letter end by making the following requests: (1) sponsor a series of public forums and (2) hold a televised debate on the UC management of nuclear weapons. Advice from Congressional staff suggests that handwritten, personalized letters are highly effective. Similarly, crayon drawings may be a way to involve young children in discussions about peace, nonviolence, and the power of one person. Editorial assistance is available through contacting either Tara Dorabji (925) 443-7148 or Michael Coffey (805) 965-3443.
    Talking Points

    1. Every nuclear weapon in the US arsenal was created in part by a UC employee.
    2. The UC Regents have managed the nation’s primary nuclear weapons labs under a contract that has never been put up for competitive bid in over 50 years. Earlier this year, the Department of Energy announced that the Los Alamos contract will be put up for bid. UC has not decided whether or not to bid.
    3. The current administration is pushing for a possible return to full scale underground nuclear testing and develop new, “more usable” and “bunker busting” nuclear weapons.
    4. The development and production of new nuclear weapons are illegal under Article VI of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which became law in 1970 and requires that: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
    5. UC scientists conduct subcritical nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site on Shoshone land that was seized by the U.S. government. The battle for land rights continues in courts to this day.
    6. Both the Livermore and Los Alamos sites are contaminated by large amounts of radioactive waste that has seeped off-site.
    7. US nuclear weapons policy is explicitly offensive and several documents name countries that the US has contingency plans for preemptive strikes. Some of these nations do not possess nuclear weapons.
    8. The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war.
    9. As institutions within the University of California system, Los Alamos and
      Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories gain access to some of the “best and brightest” minds to recruit into nuclear weapons design.
    10. There are numerous historical examples of young people and students fighting on the frontlines of the movement for social justice. Continuing this legacy, many student groups were active during the 2002-2003 school year, speaking out and organizing around militarism, environmental, and racism issues.
    11. For decades, UC faculty members have been active, vocal opponents of UC’s continued and expanded role in nuclear weapons development. While this activism has taken the form of letters to newspaper editors, testimony at Regents meetings, and referendums, a series of reports serves as the greatest resource for gauging faculty sentiment on this issue: Academic Senate Report (November 1989), Galvin Report (February 1995), and University Committee on Research Policy Report (January 1996
      UC President Designate Robert Dynes has been a consultant with the Los Alamos National Laboratory for over 20 years.
    12. Nuclear weapons constitute one category of weapons of mass destruction. The other categories are chemical and biological weapons. UC Davis is being considered as a site for a Biosafety Level 4 Laboratory for biological weapons. Researchers at level 4 laboratories study the most dangerous germs known to humans, such as SARS, anthrax, and Ebola.

    Requests

    Sponsor a series of objective and inclusive forums on the issue, at least one on every campus. Such forums need to reach various constituencies, specifically students, faculty, and staff.

    Hold a televised debate on the UC management of the nuclear weapons labs.Stop the University of California from all collaborations that develop or enable the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    Logistics

    Please pre-date your letter between October 2nd, 2003 and January 9, 2004. Contact Michael to find out which date we need you to cover. Address your letter to Robert Dynes and copy each UC Regent. It would help this effort a great deal if you would send us your letter as soon as possible. We will continue to accept letters throughout the duration of the campaign. This will enable us to maintain a persistent stream of letters. If you’re interested in a particular day, such as Dia de la Raza, Veterans’ Day, or Christmas, please contact Michael Coffey as soon as possible at (805) 965-3443 or youth@napf.org.
    Please address the letters as follows:

    Robert Dynes, President

    The Regents of the University of California

    Office of the Secretary

    1111Franklin Street, 12th Floor

    Oakland, CA 94607-5200
    Please “CC” each Regent:

    Richard Blum, Ward Connerly, John Davies, Judith Hopkinson, Odessa Johnson, Joanne Kozberg, Sherry Lansing, David Lee, Monica Lozano, George Marcus, Velma Montoya, John Moores, Gerald Parsky, Norman Pattiz, Peter Preuss, Haim Saban, Tom Sayles, Cruz Bustamante, Herb Wesson, Gray Davis, Jack O’Connell, Matt Murray, Jodi Anderson
    Please send letters to the following address:

    Michael Coffey, Youth Outreach Coordinator

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1

    Santa Barbara, CA 93108-2761

    Upon receipt of letters, we will make an electronic copy for documentation purposes, make additional hard copies to send to each Regent, and mail the letters on the appropriate date. In order to confirm that we received your letter, please provide us with your email address and/or phone number.

    During the campaign, select letters will be featured online, while at the end of the campaign a “best of” document will be created that includes selected letters, photographs, an introduction to the issues, and ideas for actions. The document will be a valuable organizing tool for future efforts.

    We would love to hear from if you know others who would be interested in writing a letter and/or contributing toward the success of the campaign in some other way. Thank you for your time and devotion!

    Draft Letter Outline

    Your name

    Full Address

    Your telephone, fax, and email information
    Date the letter
    Robert Dynes, President

    The Regents of the University of California

    Office of the Secretary

    1111Franklin Street, 12th Floor

    Oakland, CA 94607-5200
    Dear President Dynes,
    · Identify yourself (state your UC affiliation or connection to issue).

    · Share your personal thoughts on UC’s role in weapons development.

    · State requests.

    · Thank Dynes for his attention to your concerns.

    · Let Dynes know that you look forward to hearing from him.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    Sign your name

    Type or print your name

     

    CC: Richard Blum, Ward Connerly, John Davies, Judith Hopkinson, Odessa Johnson, Joanne Kozberg, Sherry Lansing, David Lee, Monica Lozano, George Marcus, Velma Montoya, John Moores, Gerald Parsky, Norman Pattiz, Peter Preuss, Haim Saban, Tom Sayles, Cruz Bustamante, Herb Wesson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jack O’Connell, Matt Murray, Jodi Anderson

    Please contact Michael Coffey, Youth Outreach Coordinator, for further information on campaign at 805. 965.3443 or youth@napf.org

  • Retired Adm. Foley will oversee labs for UC

    The University of California Board of Regents on Monday appointed a well-connected retired Navy admiral and former federal weapons director to manage three national laboratories that the university runs on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy.

    Retired Adm. S. Robert Foley, 75, will serve as the UC’s vice president for laboratory management and oversee the operations of the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons labs and the Lawrence Berkeley lab. Foley will report directly to UC
    President Robert Dynes, who recommended his appointment.

    “Admiral Foley brings tremendous history of expertise and knowledge of the nuclear weapons laboratories,” said Bruce Darling, UC’s senior vice president for
    university affairs and interim vice president of the labs for the past 10 months.

    The UC-operated labs, particularly Los Alamos in New Mexico, have been under fire for months from the federal government and nuclear watchdog groups forshoddy business practices and security breaches. Those troubles prompted a congressional investigation last year and caused Energy Department officials to put the lab contract up for competitive bid — the first time in the lab’s 60 years that UC’s management has been
    challenged.

    “In the past 60 years, the university has done great science at the laboratories,” Foley said. “Over the years, some of the business practices have deteriorated. We need a fresh way to do things.”

    With a combined budget of $4 billion, the labs represent roughly a quarter of the UC’s annual budget and are the source not only of research opportunities
    but of national prestige and political clout.

    In recent months, Foley has been an adviser to UC and Los Alamos officials working to improve management and security at the laboratory. UC officials must decide
    in coming months whether to compete for the Los Alamos contract, and Foley could be a shrewd choice for the university.

    He has connections to the Bush administration, serving on the president’s Energy Transition Team and working as a consultant to both the Defense and Energy
    departments. Foley also served as President Reagan’s assistant secretary of energy for defense programs, a job that made him responsible for the nation’s entire
    nuclear weapons complex.

    A graduate of the Naval Academy, Foley rose to commander in chief of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet. One California-based nuclear watchdog group said UC’s hiring of Foley sends the strongest signal yet that the university intends to maintain its management of the weapons labs.”It seems like the UC is doing all it can to position itself to bid for the contract and to
    keep nuclear weapons as a central mission of the labs,” said Tara Dorabji, outreach coordinator for Tri-Valley CAREs in Livermore.

    Foley’s appointment takes effect Nov. 1. His salary
    will be $350,900.


    —————————
    The Bee’s Lesli Maxwell can be reached at
    (916) 321-1048 or lmaxwell@sacbee.com

  • WMD’s and UC?

    One critical sleeper issue in California’s gubernatorial dilemma involved weapons of mass destruction, specifically the continued development of nuclear weapons by the University of California. The UC system has been a partner in the US nuclear weapons industry since the Manhattan Project. While many of us may be very familiar with the Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSB campuses, the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories may not evoke any immediate images or emotions. While these labs conduct cutting-edge research in numerous fields, nuclear weapons development is their core mission. As governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger will nominate five new UC Regents’ by the end of his term, probably selecting from among wealthy campaign supporters. These Regents will influence whether or not UC will bid to continue managing nuclear weapons laboratories owned by the Department of Energy. The recent security lapses, employee fraud, and espionage allegations at Los Alamos do not help UC’s chances. Reports indicate that Lockheed Martin, Bechtel, and the University of Texas plan to bid. This issue is bigger than the UC Regents. As UC students, alumni, faculty and community members, we must have input on the decision. This issue is bigger than California. The question is not which research institution is best suited to manage the labs, but can we redefine national security emphasizing education, environmental sustainability, food security, and health care?

    *Michael Coffey, is the Youth Outreach Coordinator of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • The University of California & the Nuclear Weapons Labs: The Role of Academia in the Development of Nuclear Weapons

    Student Pugwash USA Educational Seminar
    “Nuclear Weapons: Science and Policy”
    July 13-17, 2003; American University; Washington, DC

    INTRODUCTION

    I am not a defense intellectual or degreed scientist. I am a young concerned citizen who recognizes patterns of aggression and violence done in may name and perpetrated by leaders of a country I call home. I imagine that many of you all fit a similar self-description simply based on your being here today. I thank you and commend you all for stepping outside of the matrix of corporate media, cold war theology, and public apathy. One of the mottos and mantras that I’m beginning to use with the young interns and volunteers at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is think for yourself, see for yourself, and help others. By being here today, you’re taking the crucial steps of gathering information toward thinking for yourself.

    Today’s theme, the role of academia and scientists in the development of nuclear weapons, is a large one. The increasing militarization of US colleges and universities is a national trend that influences the courses available to students, faculty hiring, the presence of military recruiters on campus, internship and fellowship opportunities, and potentially many aspects of your high school, undergraduate, graduate, professional, and adult lives. In the interest of time, I’ll focus my comments on the University of California system which along with such prestigious campuses as Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSB includes 2 pillars of the US nuclear weapons complex: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory. These are massive institutions involved in cutting-edge, multi-disciplinary scientific research. Billions of dollars flow through them annually as do thousands of employees, including UC faculty and students. The individuals who make decisions regarding this contract are not faculty or students. UC has Regents which are essentially like a Board of Directors. For the most part, they are wealthy, influential people who have made significant financial contributions to political campaigns. The California governor appoints them; the state legislature approves them. They serve 12-year terms. It is easy to be overwhelmed and confused by the role these labs serve, but the key point to remember is that the lab’s historical and current core purpose involves the research and development of nuclear weapons.

    BASIC QUESTION & MYTHS

    So we have to ask ourselves is it appropriate for an institution of higher learning with the creed to nurture values and morals within its many students to be in the nuclear weapons business? To help you develop your own personal answer for that question, I want to share with you my list of 5 myths about the role of academia in nuclear weapons development. These are ideas that I’ve heard during UC Regents meetings, read in newspaper articles and lab reports, and heard expressed by lab representatives during panel discussions just like this one.

    #1 Public Service, Prestige, and National Security

    Many people believe that managing nuclear labs boosts UC’s status and prestige in comparison to other research institutions. This belief is based on the notion that nuclear weapons are vital to our national security. Also, the belief is based on the notion that UC performs a public or community service by managing nuclear labs. UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale who worked on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty delivered a lecture in February of last year titled “Rethinking National Security.” Based on his over 20 years of experience in the international peace and security field, he lectured on how the US has been hypocritical in our efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons while maintaining our own stockpile. I wonder what Carnesale has to say now that his university system is being considered as a site to develop new nuclear weapons? Whatever his answer, one way to refute the service and status myth is by drawing attention to the dangers and pitfalls of nuclear weapons development: the toxic waste by-products that we do not yet know how to store safely and that will be here for tens of thousands of years, the indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons damaging all life in their path whether military target or civilian population, and the many victims of the nuclear age, not just those who perished from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts and the hibakusha who survived the blasts and suffer from radiation exposure but also those who suffer from underfunded health care and public education systems and an overfunded military.

    Philip Rogaway is a professor in the department of computer science at UC Davis. This excerpt is from an article that appeared in the UC Davis student newspaper January 16, 2003:

    “…For years I have been troubled by the fact that the university I am a member of plays this unique role in the U.S. weaponry. I have always believed that the UC should terminate this role. Running weapons laboratories is at odds with the mission of an open institution of higher education, as the bulk of what the labs do is neither in the open nor education-related. Our stewardship of the labs is also inappropriate from the point of view that we are a community that spans a wide range of political orientations, ethical views and nations of citizenship. It violates UC Davis’ Principles of Community.

    A 1996 study by the University Committee on Research Policy concluded that our management of the weapons labs does not fulfill the conditions of appropriate public service. It advocated phasing out this role. The report was severely attacked by UC officials. Their objections generally ignored the central ethical question of whether it was appropriate for a university to manage U.S. weapons laboratories.

    The 1996 report was one of several that have been done over the years, consistently taking a dim view of our role in the labs. In 1990, 64 percent of faculty voted to phase out UC management of the weapons labs. In 1996, 39 percent of faculty voted to do so. Regardless, this is not a question in which UC faculty have any say, and the DOE contracts have always been renewed, regardless of faculty sentiment.

    Now Los Alamos and its UC management are again in the news. Amid FBI, DOE and Congressional investigations of widespread theft and fraud, UC President Richard Atkinson recently announced the resignation of Los Alamos’ Director John Browne and Deputy Director Joseph Salgado. Employees are accused of purchasing numerous personal items on government funds, and management is accused of dismissing those who had been investigating the incidents. The scandal is the third to hit Los Alamos in recent years… It has been reported that DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham is considering putting out for bid the UC’s contract to run Los Alamos, or even canceling it early. This would be a nice outcome, even if it should come to pass for the wrong reason…The question isn’t if we manage the labs poorly or well. We shouldn’t be managing weapons labs at all. It is unfit business for a university.”

    #2 Freedom of Academic Exploration

    When I think of universities, I think of places where ideas flourish, where you can explore concepts that may not seem to have immediate application and you’re free to be ahead of your time. Some people use this rationale to justify university-managed nuclear weapons research. Universities have an air of transparency, openness, and accountability which clash with the realities of classified, top-secret federally-funded weapons research.

    #3 Cash Cow

    There is the belief that the nuclear weapons labs bring in a lot of money. The figure is close to $3 billion, but these dollars stay at the labs. The university receives an administrative fee which pales in comparison to the total contract amount. The last I heard the figure for the administrative fee was close to $17 million. This point has a lot to do with concerns over rising student fees. The University of California is a public university system. The state and federal education budgets have a greater impact on student fees than whether or not UC manages nuclear weapons labs.

    #4 UC is better than a defense contractor

    Matthew Murray is the UC student Regent. His position allows for a student voice at the highest level of decision-making in the UC system. Last Friday, Matthew wrote an email on the nuclear topic to a group of students I work with:

    “…I should be fair and say right off that I detest nuclear weapons, I am despondent about our nation’s current attitude in engaging the international world, and I wish we could rid ourselves and the world of nuclear arms. That said, it doesn’t seem likely that that will happen any time soon, and I am currently inclined to think that I’d rather have UC managing the nation’s labs than another less qualified university, or even worse a private company, where notions of academic skepticism, peer reviewed research, and openness to the public are nowhere near as strong as in the university setting.

    That said, I do not think UC should compete for the labs no matter the circumstances. Our involvement with them has always been considered something we do as a public service and participating in a competition for their management would frame our relationship with the federal government in a different light, one that does not sit well with me.”

    I disagree with Murray on one simple point though – UC is not better than a defense contractor. As an institution that provides weapons developers with the smokescreen of academic integrity and the cheap labor of thousands of students, UC is a defense contractor. I understand where Murray is coming from in his statement about the abolition of nuclear weapons seeming far off; still, I find hope in his belief that UC should not bid to continue managing the development of nuclear weapons and that a nuclear weapons-free world is our ultimate goal.

    #5 Historical Momentum

    I have heard UC spokesman cite the reasoning of historical momentum to explain the UC-DoE contract. They are saying that because UC was there in the beginning, UC will always be there. This is by far the pro-lab supporters’ weakest argument, basically saying that people and institutions can’t change. Here is one example of an individual who changed his mind. His name is Joachim Piprek. He is a professor in UCSB’s Computer Engineering Department. This excerpt is from a letter dated March 20, 2003.

    “History has reached a turning point. The Bush administration has started an unprovoked and illegal war – against international law, against the outspoken will of the world community, and against the will of about half the American people, who openly opposed a war without UN mandate.

    Germany has started two terrible world wars which killed over 60 million people. Despite the fact that I was born ten years after the last one ended, I was never proud of being a German. My family lives in Dresden, a city that was almost completely destroyed in one night of allied bombing in 1945. More than 40,000 civilians were burned alive that night. I grew up with pictures of war and I was hoping that humankind will learn from history and that this will never happen again to anybody. War always kills innocent people, on both sides. Today, the memory of war is still alive in Europe and the vast majority of Europeans oppose this new war, no matter what their government says. As a German who came to the US ten years ago to live his dreams, I feel a strong moral obligation to stand up for peace, here and now.

    As many researchers in the US, I am involved in military research projects which pay for part of my current salary. These projects are financed by the Pentagon to ensure the superiority of US military technology. We now see very clearly that this technology will not be used to maintain peace but to wage unjustified and aggressive wars. I can no longer participate in such research in good conscience.

    I therefore declare that I will immediately stop my contributions to research reported to the Pentagon…I know that this decision will hurt my career, however, this is a small price to pay compared to the many lives of Iraqi citizens (50% children under 15) and US soldiers (100,000 body bags have been shipped by the Pentagon) as well as the lives of US citizens who will be killed in future terror attacks. All these lives and billions of our tax dollars are intentionally sacrificed by the Bush administration in order to gain access to Iraqi oil.

    Is this the American Dream?”

    CONCLUSION – THE URGENCY OF NOW

    As Nobel Laureate Joseph Rotblatt expressed last night, there have been significant changes and setbacks in nuclear weapons policy just within the last year. These setbacks involve efforts to resume nuclear testing and develop new low-yield tactical nuclear weapons, the stated intent to use nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity against named countries, and traditional nonproliferation language co-opted and used as justification to attack.

    In about 3 months, a new UC president, Richard Dynes, will begin his term. During Dynes term, UC will decide whether or not to compete to continue managing the Los Alamos National Laboratory. If UC chooses not to compete, they can send a clear message to the world that nuclear weapons development does not belong in a university setting. Living in California, I feel compelled to work on this UC-DoE issue. There may be a similar opportunity for you where you live. Let’s work together on this and honor the decades-long stand for peace by Pugwash!